the u.s. renewing their commitments and making rural development and food security as a central policy with africa. that has turned out to be true. this is for several reasons. one is simply the logic that we disengage in the early 80's, the donors and others swapped out of this sector and now they are intensively we engaging. the obama administration announced and the g-20. secretary clinton is expected to rule out and implementing a strategy prior to or round the

summit. this will be the central subject of discussion, food security, long-term reinvestment in agriculture as a solution for that. this will be the central to mention of the g-8 meeting with the central african leadership. . . a sense that's driving the u.s. policy calculation, that there was a disengagement, there's chronic hunger, we've seen all of this exposed very dramatically last spring, as food prices spiked and food and fuel prices spiked, and you had food riots across the continent and elsewhere and it was becoming elsewhere and it was becoming clear that there needed strategy both for changing the way we go about doing our emergency food relief towards more reliance on local purchase, but beyond that, to reengage in terms of ag productivity, infrastructure,

research and education, renewing university exchanges and public-private partnerships. those are going to be the big themes that are put forward, along with trying to make sure you can find worthy africa country partners that are going to pick this issue up and push on it. there's a sense that this is an area that's been neglected, that's essential for stability, for getting us out of the food relief forever mentality that we set thed into. today we put about $1.2 billion a year in emergency food relief into africa. until very recently we were putting about $60 million a year into long-term rural development investments. we're now moving to $100 billion -- million to $200 million a year that will about be going toward. that you'll hear more detail. as another important factor is that the obama administration's building off of a surge of interest that has been building over the last couple of years here in the united states.

you have senators lugar and casey leading be a effort on the senate side, matched on the house side by representatives mcgovern and emerson and others. you had a major effort undertaken by the chicago council of global affairs in partnership with the bill and melinda gates foundation. that foundation on its long-term development side. this is a top priority. they're putting $1 billion a year into development. this is one of their top priorities. chicago council pushed this, there was a chaired elite high level effort. they delivered their preliminary report during the transition to the obama administration, they followed up with the full report, shortly therefore, earlier this year, it's been embraced, it's been taken up. there's been a large mobilization of nongovernment al and activist entities. the one campaign, the bread for the world. there's been a lot of related efforts. this has gotten strong support from the world food program and

others. so we've had this unusual mobilization here and it's been embraced and moved forward by the obama administration as a priority and we're going see it front and center at the g-8. and it will be a sort of side-by-side with the global health initiative and the like. it will also be used as an instrument for reinventing usaid. within the obama administration there's an acknowledgment that the u.s. agency for international development has been hollowed out, has been neglected, needs to be reconstructed in a deliberate fashion and this turn back toward rural development, long-term investments, is going to be one of the avenues -- avenues for doing. that i'll just stop there. i'm happy to answer further questions. >> thank you, steve. we'd like to open up to questions right now.

>> george. i just want to follow up on two things. you mentioned the climate change thing. do the other g-8 leaders like what the president is doing on -- and congress is doing on climate change or do they just like it because it's more than bush? and secondly, on protectionism and free trade, do the other leaders view president obama as the protectionist he was in the campaign or the free trader he says he is now? >> thank you. i think i'll adjust to climate change and you can talk about the protectionism. .

what europeans have passed is a 20% commitment by 2020. they are using 1990 base levels. if the tape with the commitment is in the take it to a 1990 level, it is only a fourth term target. the europeans would like to see a much more defined in robust target. this is where i think you have to -- the europeans acknowledged that the have to give pros go -- president obama opportunity to work this process in a way that it is all leading to the climax

of the conference in december. they see the g8 summit as a huge marker. they have to see stronger commitments. they are fearful of a run into december and will not see some hardened -- hard and fast target. ast targets. again, i think the message here, you are going to see the european leaders publicly praised the president for his leadership, and rightly so, but i think probably they will really drive to try to seize the moment, seize the momentum, and see the commitments. a climate change, we have different priorities. is the number-one priority for europe, and our agenda is very full. it is important, but for the europeans is critical. steven? >> you want to talk on the trade issue? >> remember, the discussions on climate change will take place

in the major economies format, which will be on the last day of this whole series of proceedings. that involves not just the g-8, it involves all the major economies, including india, china, everybody else. it is important when one brings about the u.s. position and all of this, one has to recognize that the european position, almost european countries is broadly consistent, is very different from where other countries are, and the u.s. plays a pivotal role in trying to bridge gaps and facilitate some kind of agreement, even if it is just principles short of a commitment. i am not sure based on the commentary that in past practice one would see a commitment, maybe one would or would not, but what is very much on everybody's mind is this

is one of the last major groupings of the world leaders before the copenhagen summit at the end of the year. it >> briefly on trade, i think it was a lot of trepidation at the start of the obama administration about what was going to go with trade. we have seen a lot of great talk about private trade. the question is going to be, is there really action? did they miss the window for trying to push climate trade legislation, health care, all the other items on the agenda? they have made recent statements about reviving doja, but the real risk is not just the g-20, the south korean president will be there. the real risk is the european union is getting close to signing be fta, and a real risk is that the rest of the world

moves forward. there are over 300 agreements out there that exclude the united states. will they view the trade leadership as gone? i think it is good intentions, the question is, what is the time frame and how do you prioritize? i think have a better sense that he is more open toward trade and in the campaign. it is hard to get a sense, and i think it would share this, about what the priority is in terms of his agenda. other questions? that is it. thank you all for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning

>> coming up next, the white house briefing with robert gibbs bill then a forum on presidential succession. after that, tom vilsack talks with u.s. mayors at the rainbow convention. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" we talk about a 25 minute interview with president obama. nico pitney discusses the rest in iran following the election. jason, a lot has the situation in afghanistan. -- jason motlagh talks of

the situation in afghanistan. this is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> robert gibbs response to questions on a range of issues, including the news unemployment figures. this is about 30 minutes. >> tomorrow the president will go to camp david . he is leaving tomorrow. it was change. the white house to celebrate before the july on saturday. our military heroes will

barbecue on the south lawn. the evening will conclude with fireworks. 1200 military families have been invited to attend. the marine band will perform. he will deliver brief remarks. on sunday night, the first family will depart washington, d.c. for moscow. they will arrive on monday afternoon and remain in moscow until wednesday morning when the president will depart for rome and participate in g-8 activities until friday. the president will depart italy on friday night for ghana and remain there until saturday night. when the president leaves camp david, he will go to a

different location. in the year setting up for their activities. >> the president said in an interview that he was never that comfortable. what to be the alternative to dealing with terrorists suspects? >> the question was asked about how one might go about doing this from his perspective. his perspective is something that the interagency group is working on now. no decisions have been made. >> he also said the u.s. will keep the door open for north korea for talks. doesn't get to do more than

provide the door? doesn't he have to pry them in some way? >> i think it is clear that sanctions are having an impact. he said in that interview that we have gotten the cooperation of the russians and the chinese on those sanctions. these distinctions many people but would not come to fruition. i think first and foremost the administration is working to ensure vigorous implementation of those sanctions. they are put in place based on the concern of the north koreans trying to move weapons or materials out of north korea. the vigorous implementation of those inspections is first and foremost. the president continues to work to get north koreans to live up

to the obligations and responsibilities that they themselves signed up for. they will continue to do that. >> there is nothing else beyond that to get them to walk through the door? >> we continue to watch north korea. they continue to do and say what they do and say. we are certainly hopeful that they will return to discussing this. the international community has taken very strong actions to deal with the situation in north korea and to prevent weapons or material from leaving north korea. >> president obama announced that the distraction -- that's a distortion would create 100,000 jobs. they've lost 7000 jobs in the last month. the unemployment rate would of

to 7.5%. what is the president reaction to the higher unemployment rate? >> let me take that question and address it on a couple of different levels. i think you saw him rtc today that -- him say today that he is deeply disappointed by the continued job loss in our economy. he is can -- and we are continuing to lose jobs. it is something that he and the administration are working to address. understand that it has been 549 days since we have been in a month that has seen a net positive job creation. i think though the president remains deeply concerned that we are losing jobs a month to month, i do think if you are

looking -- if you step back and look at the numbers through a quarterly basis and labor statistics, they looked today from november of 2008 through i believe march of 2009. the average job loss for those months were quoted at 700,000. in the previous quarter, net job loss averaged 436,000. there is a sense that the beginnings of civilization are taking hold and hopefully the worst job loss is behind us. you all heard me say the second time i walked into this room that it was likely to get worse before it was going to get better. i do not think anybody believes and we certainly never said that a recovery plan in an of

itself would solve the economic problems or that after only 100 something days that it would turn an economy that is in the worst financial shape that we as seen since the great depression. i think there is obviously evidence that the recovery plan is working. last month, personal incomes were up as a result of the recovery plan. i think you'll hear the president said today that he sees this economy through the eyes of the american people and the american people are continuing to hurt. >> since the government is doing everything it can do, -- is the government doing everything it can do it? >> absolutely. they are helping education money to plug the holes.

understand that the recovery is just one aspect. there is financial stabilization. there is housing. there is a whole host of issues that the president and the administration are focused on. >> to follow-up on that, the recovery and stimulus is working? >> our message is that we did that get into this overnight and it is not likely that we will get out of this problem overnight. i said this weekend last that we think unemployment will continue to grow. we do see some less negative trends in the way unemployment is going. we are understanding that we have quite a ways to go. >> when is it no longer overnight?

>> when is not -- when is what? >> we are not going to get out of it overnight. how long is overnight? >> i think this is going to take some time. i think it is quick to take months and months. i think we have said that from the beginning. this is not something that -- remember, the last month in which we created jobs in this economy was december 2007. we understand that we are in the deepest recession since world war ii. this is the worst financial crisis when the take into account the market in housing. that is going to take some time. i think there certainly credible evidence. there are 1900 production -- construction projects better process. there are one and $60 billion in recovery money that has been

obligated to this. that is going to make a difference. >> afghanistan -- so much is focused on the next front on fighting against terrorism there. is the president's plan to formally prepare the american people for the potential sacrifice is there, people being kidnapped, the death, as things are ramped up? >> the american people have proved service members and understood the sacrifices as we have understood the sacrifices that they have made. many have made the ultimate sacrifice over the past seven plus years, whether in afghanistan, iraq, or thrust the world. the president is discussing an increase the number of troops that has personally been sent to afghanistan. there is likely to be more violence.

obviously, part of the increase in troops was the result of the deteriorating situation leading up to a very important election this year. the american people understand the sacrifice and commitment these men and women of our military have made and the men and women that work to stabilize the economic and government issues. >> just to follow up. yesterday, the president said the stimulus has done its job. he thinks it is working? >> the stimulus is working. the stimulus plan is injecting money into the economy. it has obligated $160 billion to deal with the dip in the amount of routes.

-- amount of roads. you hear the presidency today as he said each and every day of this administration, that we have a long way to go, that he is not going to be satisfied until we see a positive job growth, economic growth, and that is going to take some time. >> is it fast enough? >> this was a program over the course of 70%-80% over the course of two fiscal years. to do so in a way that is transparent and accountable, which is what has happened, it is going to take time. we understand that. the american people have heard it. more people are losing their jobs and health care. they are losing their hope and opportunity.

that is what the president is focused on every day. >> the same just wait, it is coming. -- you keep saying, just wait, it is coming. >> we just finished the second quarter 2009. in the three month average, we were losing 183,000 jobs a month for this past quarter, it is 436,000 jobs. in the third quarter, we went from the average of 183,000 a month to 208,000. in the fourth quarter 2008, it went to five and 63,000 jobs. in the first quarter 2009, you are almost at 700,000 jobs lost a month, including a january number, 741,000 jobs lost that is the grandest total in the history of our country. that is not something that is

going to turn around overnight. the american people understand that. the president understands the. that is why we are taking important steps to get the economy going. it is going to take time. >> have any governors come to the white house? >> not that i'm aware of. california did some. >> will there be emergency funding to any the states? >> it will depend on how the request came. through the troubled assets relief program. >> if you thought california's budget crisis was deep in the reset -- would deepen the recession, and they have to cancel state services, is that

factoring in it? >> we are going to continue to watch the situation in california and in other states throughout the country that are dealing with dramatic downturns in their own systems. about $140 billion in health care and education money are going directly to the states that will help deal will some of that downturn. each of the state's, we are all going to have to make tough choices. >> have you guys come to the assumption? not a slowdown the recovery but, >> it is what is in the best interests of our overall economic health. you want to ensure that we continue on their path toward recovery. >> you said that the worst job

losses are hopefully behind us. do you think unemployment will hit 10% this year. >> absolutely. we went from 9.4% to 9.5%. i expect in the next two-three months, it is quite clear that we will hit that number. you have to treat about 180,000 jobs a month simply to have it stay at the level that was the previous month. yes, i think we are headed toward a 10%. >> does -- this country will cross the threshold of having these job losses. >> i am sorry? >> it will then be a while before the country passes a threshold where we have job losses -- >> we are going to continue --

employment and unemployment tended to be when the last things that include an economic downturn. this recession statistically is the worst since world war ii. this the worst economic crisis our country has dealt with. insuring that financial stabilization happens, ensuring that small businesses are free to borrow, consumer confidence goes up. a lot of those things are going to have to happen until businesses still confident enough to begin to hire more people. that is what you are going to see happen. businesses will have to make those decisions over the course of many months or years. but to follow on health-care

reform from yesterday. what has the staff unable to find out about this woman who got so much presidential attention? >> it is my understanding that a third party has been in touch with our staff and her about helping her out, but i do not want to get into that is for her privacy. >> would remedy her situation? >> it is a specialization in her concern. >> you said the sanctions on north korea are having some impact. >> i think we have seen -- first of all, the impact alone of the united international community is a tremendously important. there have been positive developments over the past -- past few days as it relates

to numbers 3. i do not want to get any more specific. >> that does not include the four launches from this morning? what know, again, -- >> no, again, they said they would do these launches. i do nothing that was surprising that a launch of these missiles. >> you are not providing specifics on what the impact has been. >> if you turn on cable, you can see it. >> would you consider it a positive indication that there is no indication of a warm-up of work when someone is sending a missile? what i do not want to get into that. i take the numbers 3 and that there were. they are going to -- the north koreans at their word. they are going to continue to

launch. what is important is that the united -- is that the global community is united. we need to take all the steps that we need to to address any of those possible acts. the night of fronts, relating to implementing those sanctions and proliferations, make sure does not take place. those are all very positive signs as relates to north korea. >> in regards to judges so to my air. -- judge susaotomayor. it was said it would not lay off policemen, firefighters come and teachers. that is not how it was described before congress. >> obviously, there are aspects

of the recovery plan relating to the program that help state and local governments hire and retain police officers. there is education money that helps states and localities hire teachers. i would not say that the only action of the bill was to keep police and firefighters on the job, but there were aspects of the plan that helped ensure that. >> that was only the context of declaring the stimulus has worked. >> i think he is declaring the fact that we are seeing an increase in construction projects. we are seeing an increase in the amount of money that is going out. we are seeing an increase in the amount of money that goes to state governments that cushion the blows we are talking about in terms of a fiscal shortfall. we saw an increase in personal

income last month. >> is the president satisfied? >> no, he will not be satisfied until there is a positive job growth, economic growth. we are seeing some hopeful signs in the notion that if you look at some of the quarter's of job loss, there is a lessening in that number. it is from 691,000 from the first quarter. >> there are many that were full time that are part time. they need to look at the larger structural unemployment number. >> i hope that is either a cell

phone or an ice-cream truck. somebody go get my wallet ice cream sandwiches are on me. look, the president would evaluate that we are in the midst of the worst economic recession and many of have -- of us have seen in our lifetime. we will take steps on recovery and implementing that allows the of the factors that stabilize the economy. >> you said you look at any proposal from states that our cash strapped. are you inviting state to come to the federal government to get a remedy for their fiscal problem? [laughter] >> i was giving them your e- mail, not mine. all wanted to say was --

>> they will come with a proposal. >> they will come regardless of what is a. -- what i say. all those trying to say was is that the administration will evaluate and take action on whatever we believe will help the economy. that is what we have done up until this point in that is what we will continue to do. we are open to anything that will help turn the economy around, and the metal held jobs, anything that will stabilize a job growth. the it ministration continue to look at everything. >> republicans agree that the pace of the delivery of documents -- there held here for a while. they generally the time is sufficient for them to review

them and be adequately prepared for the confirmation. >> the best review of how judge sotomayor and how she would be as a judge of the 17 years of legal proceedings that she has written she herself has worked on them. there are not boxes of documents that she did not write, review, or put in place. this is the same organization whose voice to as a participant in in both 1993 and in 1998 when the senate approved her to be a judge on each of those occasions. it is curious to me why a group of people would have expressed great concern over the course of the past five weeks that they have had an efficient -- in

sufficient time to read 17 years of opinion that she has wrote. there has been plenty of time to review the record of her. we look forward to the hearings starting a schedule. we look forward to the senate processing. we look forward to her being a justice sotomayor. >> i am itching to do this. the president said -- today

praised the progress of the kennedy health care bill. in that analysis, it covered 97% of the uninsured people. however, it is my understanding that it uses a gimmick that says it counts on an expansion of medicaid to cover a huge portion, tens of millions of those people, that is not paid for by the bill. is the question you are asking is whether not the cbo estimates that came out today is one that is accurately reflected of a complete evaluation of our health care bill? >> and the statement --

what i know the president said. -- >> i know the president said. i made a similar argument about a piece of legislation evaluated by the cbo just a few days ago. that seems to a fallen on deaf ears. i will give you what i believe is the answer that you are looking for. this is obviously something that has been done by the congressional budget office. the health committee does not have jurisdiction over the legislation for th. as for the complete analysis, i would point to the congressional budget office. many things that were outlined in the bill -- i think the president believes in capitol hill among businesses and among the american people making

progress toward comprehensive health-care reform. >> one of the things nancy reported today was about some boards she was on -- do you have any response to that report and whether there are any concerns in terms of conflicts of interest? >> we have very stirred ethics rules of you -- at the white house. -- strict ethics rules at the white house. in mantillas and a great job and is implementing and working with -- nancy has done a great job and is implementing and working with holders to bring that comprehensive health care reform. i appreciate your service. it does not seem there is any conflict of interest. >> has anyone from the white house invited to the public would washington post" salons?

>> i do not anybody here was -- i think some people, rit large, may have been invited. i did and a that anybody has accepted. -- do not know that anybody has accepted. the council would have to review an invitation like this. i think it will likely exceed what the council would likely feel would be appropriate. i meant the administration, i am sorry. >> was the councils involved in reviewing imitations -- what i do not know. i can check on that. >> i wanted to stay here in

canada on work. -- and catch up on work. i have to run, because the president is about to go out. >> up next, a forum on presidential succession. after that, tom vilsack talks with u.s. mayors as the operation convention to give them a preview of president obama's overseas trip next week. >> tomorrow, associated press white correspondent jennifer it talks about her interview with president obama.

nico pitney discusses the rest and elan -- and iran. there are other political news of the day. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern. >> over the july 4 weekend, notable americans on c-span, stories from inside the white house, domestic policy advisers on the president from richard nixon to george w. bush. honoring president ronald reagan. ken burns on his career and upcoming series on america's national parks. a tribute to the riser john updike. -- to the author john updike.

he has won two pulitzer prizes. find out what is on any time at c-span.org. >> this is a forum on the american presidential secession in the event of an attack. to hear about a new report on potential weak points. fran townshend and policy analysts. it is over 2.5 hours. >> of this is key around the success of this report. we are preserving our institutions, which is the second report of the continuity of government commission. this was created in the aftermath of 9/11.

there is the recognition that washington will remain a key target for terrorists and that a key objective is to do as much as possible to disrupt american's institutions of governance. what comes from that is that we have inadequate plans in place. this is in the constitution and the law to make sure we have adequate insurance to get those institutions, especially the three key branches of government that represents the first three articles of the constitution, up and running effectively with the confidence of the public without disruption as quickly as possible. with presidential succession, this is regulated by law after the vice president allow congress to create eighth line of secession. we have had three separate

pieces of legislation that were done. the most recent was in 1947. as the report suggests, it was designed not to deal with the kind of threats that we have in the modern-day world. we are going to explore this issue from a variety of perspectives. we are going to start with a key note by fran townshend. fran has a strong as akron as anybody does it to engage the public and the commission on these issues. she served as an assistant to president bush for homeland security and shared the homeland security council for almost four years from 2004-2008. she also has a long career in government. shoes with the coast guard. she served in the justice department for many years. as a prosecutor, she is now

with baker during strategic consulting on risk engagement abroad. thank you frank, thank you for joining us. >> norm, thank you for inviting me. i would warm folks on sort of the warm-up act and i thought it would be useful, it's a very serious subject but i hope to get you to chuckle a little this morning with some of the sword of honest, you know, stories about behind all the policy and all the initiatives. this is hard and it was hard in the executive branch. you know, when you think about the history and there have been some very i think useful reports by the congressional research service looking at some of the history here, and while norms introduction was very kind, he is the person who i would love to and read his stuff when i was

thinking about the policy initiatives in this area. you know, there was a great attention to the subject as we know going back to the cold war. but between that period of time between the end of the cold war and september the 11th, there wasn't a lot of attention here. because we thought the greatest threat from a state on state perspective was well behind us. and we didn't really believe in a fundamental way that other threats, nonstate actors, posed sort of a real strategic threat to our existence until september the 11th and that tragedy. even then, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 people said we need to turn our attention back to this. we realized the paradigm of cold where contingency planning still, even that didn't quite fit because of course that presumes intelligence and warning capabilities that you can begin to go as we say in the continuity world to warm and a

hot actor off-site facilities. and so even that would be helpful, but not dispositive of how we approached the whole area of continuity. it's interesting, and not i suspect an accident, if you look at the prior presidential directive, i'll talk a little bit about the presidential directive that president bush signed an continuity but if you look at the one seimei president clinton in october of 1998, of course you will recall that's only months after the stafford embassy bombing in august of 1998. i at that point in time, dick clarke was chairing the interagency committee group at the nsc. i was participating in that from the justice department. and it was back up to form a basis of the thinking for the policy behind pbc 67. president bush, reviewed the data again and added to that.

remember now, when president bush signed the new presidential directive, 51, of course now we have a new department. we have the department of homeland security and things have changed. things have progressed. you can imagine him after september the 11th the president was incredibly frustrated by his inability to connect it with the american people, the difficulty of communications even within his own cabinet. and so there was an immediate turn to the issue of continuity of the presidency and supporting of the immediate courson and staff of the president of the united states. and that was the first real priority in the aftermath of september the 11th. of course, while people here will understand it, it's worth my saying i obviously can't talk about the details of the continuity of the presidency because all that is classified. i will tell you that there are millions upon millions of dollars, and lots of time and attention that was turned to that, and president obama

inherited a far superior, not just far superior, but superior by almost any standard of anything else we understand about our allies around the world, a far superior system for his long term and not just his, but left a legacy in terms of the continuity of the presidency that is much stronger than anything i think anybody would have contemplated. as you begin to look at the continuity of the presidency, you immediately realize that will only be as effective as the plans that are nested beneath it. continuity of the government, continuity of operations across the federal government. because of course you may have provided the continuity of the presidents and the staff, but who are they going to talk to. who is going to provide them sort of staff support, policy support and operational support that they need to be effective. funny story on the continuity of the presidency. you can imagine while i was one of the people who was charged

with the responsibility of thinking about this everyday, most of my colleagues, very smart, very focused, very disciplined people did not think about this at all, as it were not required to. but you can imagine, just like most things, if you don't practice it you don't do it very well when there is a crisis. so we would have been briefed. i asked working with the white house budget office to have been briefed. we were taken to an offsite, we walked into what to expect. and i could always help but chuckle. one of the sinner scenarios we walked into his imagine a biological or chemical attack. and imagine having to go through decontamination procedure. so we literally lie to folks up at a facility and walked them through exactly what it would look like. and as you can imagine, imagine what you think decontamination facility looks like. this is not the four seasons bathroom. this is not luxurious. it's not pretty. and it's, by the way, you're not having an individual shower

stall. so you line folks up and they get in, and this one happened to be a three-person facility. walked in. they were explained, there's a little counter that starts here, you rip your clothes off, you're going to be naked. you walk and three at a time, one of the women turned around and said which way is the women's shower. [laughter] >> again, there is no women's shower. you're going to be in there together. oh, she says. i'm glad i brought you know we told them you have to have this back at your desk in case you have to be whisked off. i will have my close. no, that won't apply to decontamination unit. she said well, are their clothes on the other side? yak, no designer duds but we will put you in something. so it was very funny because you realize people who don't like your panel, like the commission, like me, people don't have to think about this every day really don't have any concepti

conception. now that's okay as as long as they are prepared. and i'll tell you the funny story because part of the planning is walking people through psychologically what to expect. otherwise, they are going to of that mental bandwidth in the prices to be dealing with this unfamiliar situation. they haven't been prepared for when the president of the united states or the country needs some folks very specifically in the area of their expertise. i'll tell you what we did was, it's funny. one of the things in this presidential directive signed by president bush, i was appointed the national continuity court nader, congressional research pointed out it was not by what authority i had because i couldn't direct federal agencies. having read that i feel compelled to explain to you that that was really a function if you understand the white house is in the wake of iran-contra. white house staffs have made very clear from white house counsel are not operational. that means they don't direct operations out of the west wing

of the white house. and so the idea was i would coordinate policy, and i would assess performance here but i was not directing operations inside of federal agencies. for those of you who haven't worked in the white house, i should tell you that that's a little bit term of art because when you report directly to the president and you are in proximity to the president, cabinet secretary will understand that once policy has been agreed upon and it has been signed by the president as being implemented, you have a good deal of moral suasion to be able to say you're playing is inadequate or it's insufficient in this way and you need to redirect resources. in addition, as you well know, the power o the purse is important and you will find in the directive the director of omb working with the person in my position were to accept on annual basis budgeting, funding and performance for these continuity programs. so while you couldn't actually direct it, there was a good deal

of authority that allowed you to be pretty influential in being able to do that. we had a series of meetings among the inner agency, each cabinet secretary did appoint one individual in their department responsible. we talked about what the standards, the requirement for. we did practice it. we would have eventually they had to go to their off-site facilities. you can imagine, you know, almost every major national event was a good opportunity for an exercise to practice. almost always if you saw the state of the union, a political convention, the inoculation. all of those are national security events that trigger continuity exercises and capability where you go. each time he do that you learn something if you didn't think a. you learn some way to strengthen as you learn much or vulnerabilities are. i will tell you, as we get

further from september the 11th, i do worry about people's time and attention to this issue. i've always said one of this country's great strength is its optimism. and we don't want people to be constantly worried or fearful about another attack. that said, we have to be cognizant of the fact that our enemies continue to plan every day. and so we need to be ready and their need to be people inside the government who are devoted to this topic and constantly refining. continuity, i remember telling my cabinet colleagues, the issue with continuity is i never got to a point where i felt really good about it. and that was because it's always a work in progress. it's always a work in progress. you know, you can't ever rest on the fact that, okay, we've got that. we get that done now and we can move onto the next policy issue. its constant refinement. and in the pdb 51 there are

timelines requires the dni to provide a biannual threats to continuity of government. it requires omb as i mentioned annual assessment of continuity funding and performance. it requires the office of science and technology policy to set minimum continuity communications standards. i think we've got to be asking the current administration how are they doing, and are they doing that, and when are they doing that and what is the performance of those federal there is no creature issue on which we require some answers to be sure that when a citizen really need it government to be able to work for our safety and our security, that they are ready to do that job to do it is not the time to ask it in the middle of a crisis. it is not also affected. let me close by saying that i

left the white house in january of 2008. i had started -- i was already one year into planning for the transition of presidential power that was going to happen a year later. this is an issue that tremendously concerned me. president bush had a unique and responsibility because it was the first transition of presidential power. there is more communication between the outgoing and incoming administration on this issue. it is a metal -- model. even the new administration would say that it is incredibly important what we did did. in terms of planning for that. two points that i think their continued discussion, attention and frankly were. one was in the context of continuity of government. as you can imagine i was responsible in terms of planning

for the executive branch, but understood well that it required continuity planning on the part of the judicial branch and the legislative branch. we incorporated sort of provisions for their continuity plans. we didn't have visibility into it. we didn't have input into it. we tried to make sure we had a dialogue, in particular another one of these typical washington stories. in the interagency project, frequently people will want to own, own turf but not occupy. that is, this is my area, i'm responsible, stay away. but then they don't do anything with it. and nothing used to frustrate me more in government if there's any comfort, it doesn't, that phenomenon doesn't just reside in the executive branch. because when i tried to engage congress on this issue, there was a terse push back and forth. the villains in this will ring

name anonymous to protect their own, but there was a push back and forth, no, this is mine, know this is mine. and then of course we heard nothing from anybody about what they were doing. and so i do worry about the adequacy, particularly at the legislative branch. we have some greater dialogue particularly with the supreme court and were able to incorporate them. this was not about trying to dictate what the plans were, i hasten to add that we were not suggesting that we knew better or they should do certain things. things. we decide if we are a all going to plan for continuity we have to be able to communicate. we have to understand least a broad outlines of each other's plans, and there is a good deal more work that needs to be done there. and then lastly, and it's really the lead-in to what the current report and panel is about today. the single thing that i was most gravely concerned about in the transition before i left the white house was the actual transition of presidential power. and that was because i could imagine, it seemed to me not

unfathomable that our enemies understood, because we publicly debate about when is the formal transfer of power, what if there is an attack on an inauguration day before president obama took the oath. and i was a deeply concerned. i like many and i think is a reference to in the report today believed the presidential succession act of 47 as regards the speaker and the presidential pro tem of the senate in a line of succession is unconstitutional. and so given that, given that you didn't have cabinet secretaries sworn in for the new administration, given everybody in the governmental power structure was there, you can imagine even out of government a year later, i watched the inauguration with pride, but holding my breath waiting for everybody to get off that day. that shouldn't be. people, the national continuity coordinator should be able to

have greater confidence in holding one's breath and hoping everybody gets off there safely. and so i think really, your section seven of this report is very important. there have got to be priorities, cut to the action, got to be dialogue, and we cannot wait to do this until there is a threat. so thank you, norm, for inviting me. i really applaud your effort, and hope that they listen and do something about it. [applause] >> thank you so much, fran. i want to say first that the work she did to make the transition the first one since 9/11 the best we have ever had because it went into directions, which rarely happens. including focusing on the inaugural and getting somebody in the line of succession away from washington was unsung heroism. the second is a point that she may. we are now two months from the

eighth anniversary of 9/11. and there is a lot of complacency out there. it is stunning that we have not seen the kind of action, especially in congress, and frankly in the judicial branch. much less attention to the presidential succession act that needs to be there, eight years after the fact, and we in the commission hoped to wrap up our efforts to overcome the inertia that we've had. we now have two panels that will be led successively by my colleague, john fortier, at aei who is also the executive director of the continuity of government commission on the theory of presidential succession, or theories of presidential succession. and then by tom mann of brookings who joins me as the senior advisor to the continuity of government commission. sullenly turned over to john fortier. >> great, thank you. that was a great lead-in to a couple interesting discussions

we hope to have today. we had a distinguished panel today with three panelists. you see two of them. i will introduce them all, but there's a third panelist, and because we are working in the world of continuity and contingency, we had in an emergency up yesterday where akhil arnar is not going to be with us on the panel but being with us by phone. i want to say from an on under an undisclosed location. is a professor at yellow school so you might guess what state he is in. but it also shows our succession plan because of course this current government is essentially harvard law school. we have you lost cool as the successor just in case things go wrong. this panel is going to be more about this theory of presidential succession. i do think it is worthwhile for me to make a few points about the report. our second panel will be much more focused about the report.

it will have a number of our commissioners and people who serve in government that dealt with these issues on the ground. but i want to put a couple points on the table from our report and then we'll have our three panels discussed them from three very interesting perspectives in academia, industry of constitutional law, as well as a working journalist who has looked at these issues as well. this report makes several recommendations. fran townsend referred to one of them and i won't say too much about that, how we deal with the question of inauguration day. that's a very important question. i know that jim, commissioner of our is going to say something particular about that on the panel coming up on the second panel. but our two big recommendations really are, one, everyone in washington, everyone in the line of succession that we can all, they are all in washington. they all work here and they all live theater while we think it is a remote possibility, it is still a possibility that is

something truly catastrophic happened here in washington, and as a precaution against that we advocate that there are, should be several offices created for people to sit outside of washington. those offices would be filled by the president of the united states with confirmation by the senate and they might be held by people who were former secretaries of state, former senators, former homeland security advisers. we have people who although you live in washington so that wouldn't work, but the idea is to have a backstop behind the key people in the line of succession is the worst were to happen and we were to have to turn to people outside of washington. the second again has been referred to by fran townsend, and that is a very difficult question and i know akhil amar will refer to does much more directly, but we think it is not wise to have congressional leaders in the line of succession. not only is it not wise, we agreed with the constitutional judgments of both akhil amar and

james madison, who both believe and others in between, that the constitution was set, the particular clause but also the structure of the constitution is such that a cabinet succession or executive branch of succession is not only more appropriate but feels better with unusual circumstances. one example is in the case of a president having to take over for a president who is disabled or incapacitated. the vice president very easily might take over for the president, but if we are to go down the line, the speaker of the house, the speaker of the house has to lead the congress, leave his position as position of speaker and come to the executive branch never to go back. would've speaker choose to do that in an emergency with a president who is perhaps out of commission for or five hours or several days, could there be a change in party without an election.

of course there could be. we have had a number of circumstances where ronald reagan might have been succeeded by tip o'neill, bill clinton by newt gingrich, or george w. bush by nancy pelosi. so we think there are a number of reasons why it is unwise to have congressional leaders and the line of succession, and i would say those two plus the in migration center are big recommendations. you can read the others in our report. for those of you reading to read it on line is continuity government.org. and with that, with those facts on the table, what i would like to do is then do a more general discussion of the issue of presidential succession. our panelist will say something about the report, their reaction to it. but mostly they have come to this issue by thinking about it for a long time regarding the 25th amendment, regarding the question of congressional leaders in the line of succession. in the case of jim may and looking at the planning for continuity of government operations that surround these issues. so let me introduce our panelist.

i will start with our panelist absentia and i want to make sure he is year. is akhil amar here. >> good morning, john. >> thank you. he is a professor of law and political science at yellow and her university. he teaches both at yale law school and at the college and was a clerk for stephen breyer at the first circuit before coming to yale. is also the author of several important books, constitutional text books but also two very important books, one of the bill of rights and one on the constitution. the first the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, and most recently americas constitution and biography. is also an author of numerous articles and has testified in congress very strongly on this question of presidential succession in and is as i said with a james madison, and the commission believes is correct

that having congressional leaders and the line of succession is unconstitutional. john feerick, to my right, has several important lines in his biography and he has something i think that all of which is wish we had. he has worked on these issues but he has also been a driving force behind an actual amendment in the constitution that addresses these matters. john worked very closely with senator birch by and others in getting the 25th amendment passed, and that is a great verification of the way in which a president, the succession may take over successors may take over for the president in times of incapacity. and also that a vice president may be replaced at a new vice president may be confirmed. and that of course we have seen in practice, and twice and very important ways in the 1970s. he is also the author of several books on this issue. one more generally on presidential succession which is falling hand, and not on the

biography also an important book about the 25th amendment itself. he has been the dean of fordham law school and is professor of law there now and teaches forces in the constitution there. and he is working on and coming out with a follow-up book, is that correct? an update of the 25th amendment which will be out in the next year or so. third to jim mann who is an author and resident at the school of at johns hopkins. he has been a journalist at los angeles times, serving in beijing working on national security issues, and the author of a couple of important books. the most recent one of the rebellion of ronald reagan, a history of the end of the cold war just out in 2009. probably still looking good for early christmas gifts and stocking stuffers. and also importantly the rise of

the balkans, the history of bush's war cabinet. and that book as well some of the writings he really does look at some of these questions of the continuity exercises that we have conducted over the years. and those exercises work very closely with some of these legal and constitutional provisions that we talk about in the report. so i would like to do in that order her to each of the three of them, and then have some little discussion on the panel and then open it up to the general audience for some questions. so i'm going to turn into akhil. >> think you, john. can you all hear me? >> yes, sir. mac wonderful. so as john mentioned, this is itself an illustration of the idea that one can in principle be in the loop, even if one is not in the district. so i can be part of this conversation and you can listen to me, i can listen to you and yet we are geographically apart, and that's part of the idea of

the presidential succession commission's report is that we should have at least one, perhaps more than one person inr i just want to set a couple of things, and then listen to the rest of you all and i look forward to a conversation. there are lots of policy reasons

to remove congressional leaders from the line of succession. the problem of party discontinuity. america votes for a republican president, like ronald reagan or george bush, and ends up instead with tip o'neill or nancy pelosi. or vice versa, both for democratic president like bill clinton and ends up with newt gingrich. that's a policy concern. it particularly, these things are totally exogenous and random. it's a temptation for someone to try to affect massive regime change, if that person knows that by wiping out the president and vice president, policy could shift decisively from one clinical party to another, really undermine what the american people thought they were voting for when they voted for president. and that's not just a hypothetical. that's happened in american

history. even sometimes with valid tickets between president and vice president, you can affect a certain kind of regime change if you shift presidential power from abraham lincoln to andrew johnson or from one branch as john wilkes booth did, or from one branch of the republican party, james garfield to a different branch, chester arthur. when garfield assassin proudly announces that he's attempting regime change as he is being tackled to the ground at union station. is said i am a stallworth and garfield will be a president. and in his pocket is a letter for who should be in garfield cabinet. so this possibility of a shift of one political party to another is in crisis from martin sheen to john goodman, for those of you who are west wing fans, is a real one. is a considerable policy

concern. there are other policy considerations about the case of temporary disability, can a congressional leader easily step in just for a brief period. when that brief period will require resignation from the speakership and from the house of representatives. so those are some, many policy considerations i think that counsel in favor of removing congressional leaders from the line of succession. i just wanted to highlight a couple of constitutional considerations that reinforce those policy considerations. james madison thought that putting congressional leaders in the line of succession was unconstitutional. maybe you don't think he was right, you know, although he was james madison. but even if there's any doubt

whatsoever in your mind about the correctness of james madison's proposition, i think just the mere existence of doubt, strong doubt, reasonable doubt, the fact that there are many thoughtful people, whether they all agree with mattison, they at least think that madison had a pretty good point, a pretty strong point even if in the end they might be unsure. that that in and of itself is a reason to remove congressional from the line of succession because we don't want to have any question whatsoever, even if it's never litigated, but just in the public mind, and world opinion, about the legitimacy of transfer of power. we are talking about scenarios about hypothesis that the nation is in extremist where both the elective executive branch officials for one reason or another out of action. could be precipitated by a terrorist event or a natural disaster, the country is reeling, the world is uncertain,

markets are on the precipice perhaps of severe collapse because a massive uncertainty. someone steps forward. so and in the next-door is in the following days of blogs and paper, there is some question about the legitimacy of this transfer of power. because there is a real argument that this statute is unconstitutional. that is very much to be avoided. the second point, constitutional point whatever constitutional arguments james madison made, and he made many good ones it seems to me, there are additional constitutional considerations arising after the 25th amendment, with john feerick and senator biden were so influential in getting past. so the current law which is adopted in 1947, even if you

thought appropriate disregarded the views of james madison, the original constitution provision, at the 1947 law did not in deed could not thought about how it would fit or not fit with a subsequent amendment adopted in the wake of president kennedy's assassination. the point that the minute. and there are various aspects of that 25th amendment that seemed very much in tension with the current statutory regime of congressional people in the line of succession. let me just mention a couple and then turn things back over to my fellow panelists. one point, the point that the minute is designed in large part preserve a kind of party continuity. you vote for one party for president and that's in serious think what you're going to get for the next four years. you've over richard nixon and if

you don't get richard nixon you gets bureau agnew. and if something happens to him you get someone that nixon picked because he's the one you voted for and that is gerald ford. if something happens to ford you get someone that ford picks, and that nelson rockefeller. this is what the 25th amendment provides, kind of apostolic linear procession from the president who has the mandate and they cost duchenne he ordained for your term. that's the provision of the 25th minute. google for republican president you get republican policies for four years in the white house, or for democratic presidents, four years of democratic policies are and that vision of the 25th amendment is most consistent with cabinet succession where you are getting someone to really be elected, the duly elected president handpicked or someone who follows in that line. that's what you get with cabinet succession. you do not get that with congressional succession. so president and vice president die or disable sequentially,

under the 25th amendment samaras you are going to get party continuity. but if they both are taken out of action at the same time, you get massive discontinuity in tension with the vision of the point that the minute. second tension, the 25th amendment envisions a regime in which presidents are going to, when the vice president as he becomes vacant, this is because the president is dead and the vice president stepped up on the vice president has died or resigned. when you have a vacant vice presidency, the 20th amendment provides that that vacancy filled by presidential nomination. and i think in spirit and vision contemplate a pretty smooth and speedy confirmation of the new vice presidential nominee, but the current succession statute gives the congressional party if it's different than the presidential party its interest to drags its heels and delay the confirmation of a successor of

vice president because if something happens in that window, they're congressional leaders, the other parties are going to be, going to gain the white house even though they didn't win it at the last presidential election. and that creates bad political incentives. and insane as i think that our intention with the 25th amendment vision of the quick filling and smooth filling of a vice presidential vacancy. the final 25th amendment scene that is inconsistent it seems to me with the current statutory regime is one under section three of the 25th amendment where in the event of even a temporary presidential disabilities, the president undergoing an operation or having some sort of illness that he is expected to or she is expected to recover form. it envisions a smooth transitions of power back and forth between president and vice president, president be able to hand off presidential power to

the vice president and then get handed back smoothly when the disability has ended. that cannot happen with congressional succession because someone can't both be speaker of the house and a member of congress on the one hand, and the acting president of the united states, the current statute requires and i think properly so constitutionally so, requires the congressional leaders if they're going to step up to become acting president have to step down from their positions in in congress. but that creates real difficulty if it's just a temporary transition. john goodman and the west wing episode have to give up his congressional position without knowing whether martin sheen disability is going to be short or long. that is not a problem. a smooth transition back and forth can easily happen with a cabinet officer because a sensible new statute need not require that a cabinet officer give up his cabinet position

even as he or she steps up to wield presidential powers in a temporary disability situation. they can be secretary of state and acting president, and then when the disability is eliminated they can go back to being secretary of state. is a much smoother and more seamless. so again, even if you don't think they are not persuaded that james madison was absolutely correct, even if you think it's pretty plausible to think that he got it right, that's a reason i think would change in the statute. and a second set of reasons is even if you think that congress made the right call in 1947, a subsequent constitutional amendment, the 25th amendment is really in tension in many ways with the current statutory regime of congressional leaders in the line of succession. and with that, i thank you very much and look forward to hearing my colleagues. >> thank you, akhil. i'm going to, if i could add one antidote to bolster one of akhil's point did he mention the question of a party in congress

perhaps dragging its feet, not to appoint a vice president to fill a vacancy. i have in my files some transition memos for the carl albert presidency, and those transition memos were written by ted sorensen at the request of some members of the democratic congress to add the time saw spiro agnew had left the vice presidency. there was some thought they could delay on gerald ford, richard nixon was near to being on the ropes and perhaps democrats, carl albert being speaker of thspeaker of the houe the presidency himself. there were some very detailed thinkings of the imaginations of how to present this new presidency to the american people. i think his point is that this is not a good incentive. one that if it was time to remove richard nixon, one might have gone down the line to the secretary of state and others in the cabinet of the nixon administration but you wouldn't have had the incentive to take

over that we saw in that case, not fulfilled but envisioned by some members. so i'm going to turn to john feerick. >> thank you for the invitation to comment on your report of presidential succession. let me say that the continuity of government commission plays and exceedingly important role in studying and calling attention to and making recommendations on subjects bearing on continuity in government. the report issued today highlights problems that predate the september 11, 2001, but have come into sharper fork is because of that tragic event in american history. another tragedy, the assassination of president kennedy revealed flaws in the system also not new but that event led to a major step forward with the adoption of the 25th amendment. looking broadly at our system of presidential succession, i believe our constitutional and statutory provisions have done a good job in protecting the

american people in times of succession crises. but we need to constantly studied them to make sure that they are as good as they can be. the federalist said that a primary end of civil society is the safety and security of the people. without which our liberties are enabled to forge. our system of presidential succession, i suggest, has served us well in providing such safety and security. it has enabled us to move forward even in the most dramatic of circumstances, such as the death of a president or resignations of an elected president and vice president. what should we expect of a system of presidential succession that might be asked. some features important to me are providing stability and order in the transition of power, along for the continuity of government and respecting in its functioning constitutional principles. the people must understand this system and have confidence in its elements and application.

the report issued today is impressive in scope and detail. in a relatively brief document it provides an important overview of the history and provisioned on presidential succession. it identifies major problems and proposes reasonable, if not some respects, creative measures to address these problems. i make these comments and offer these observations concerning the recommendations contained in this report. the removal of the legislative leaders from the line of succession as a policy matter is long overdue, in my humble opinion. the hr%)ha&i@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ b

succession in the colonies, or look at succession as reflected in the early state constitutions

with respect to those states that elected governors. you would see that the legislative person emerging after the demise of the governor, if that be the case, or the deputy governor if that be the case, was not out of the understanding of the framework of the constitution. i just know that intentionally, but as i say, i think the thrust of this report and the emphasis of mr. amar data policy in and of itself, i think strongly urge urges for the adoption of the recommendations set forth in this report. the idea of adding to the line of succession, though so outside of washington, has merit and appeal. as i noted in my own writing 45 years ago. i wonder, however, it is wise to

reduce the number of cabinet members in line to the fore as suggested in the report. i suggest that the various scenarios in the report make a case for a longer line of succession, and therefore the continuation of all the cabinet members in the line of succession. this would be in keeping with history, and consistent with the use of the entire cabinet in the determination of presidential inability under the 25th amendment. the recommendation of the report is certainly correct, that the 1947 statute needs to be clarified as to whether or not acting secretaries are included in the line of succession, assuming the current line is maintained. i can go either way on this one, influence in part by reaching the 25th minute of including an acting secretaries where there might not be ahead of the department in the determination of presidential inability. i note also in your report that

acting secretaries may be serving as head of the departments in the free inauguration period, a period of particular vulnerability as the keynote speaker today no doubt that this make even more important the recommendations of the report as to facilitate the appointment of the new cabinet. to make clear the removal of the acting secretaries of coverage under the succession act of 1947, and not deal with the pre-inauguration days of the inauguration period along the lines of this report could be imprudent. reducing a time period between the casting of electoral votes and a formal declaration by congress appears right, but i have two observations. isn't necessary to have more than a few days between the two events in order to handle any resulting court litigation that would flow from the votes of electives. and shouldn't wait while we are at a reform of the electoral

college area do much more about the electoral college system which can produce popular vote losers, tolerate electorate defections and sanctioned a choice by congress under an antique, one state, one vote formula. of course, i realize that the mandate of the commission may not reach that far. the recommendation of a special election is intriguing, but raises questions for further consideration. such as whether an election in five months under an electoral college and political party system would actually work. it's too soon, and stabilize it enough given that once that election is over another election cycle would begin. the ford rockefeller selections in the worst possible circumstances in american history worked well in providing stability and continuity. basically i'm suggesting that where there is no president and

vice president within the first two years of a presidential term, leaving the system exactly where it is at the present time rather than moving toward a system of a special presidential election. but if one were to move toward a system of a special presidential election at that point, there is an issue, maybe a constitutional issue, certainly those in 1886 that put as a cabinet in the succession law thought there was an issue as a duration of a president's term flowing from such a special election. the members of congress that debated the cabinet line of succession and put it in the succession law in 1886 removing the president pro tem and speaker from the then law of 1792 thought that a special election would have to respect

the four year term of the constitution. i just would note that issue, but i think the recommendation is an interesting recommendati recommendation. it should be out there, as it will be, for discussion and consideration, but i do think there are a lot of issues with that particular question of whether or not to have a special election. i find interesting the recommendations contained in the report on presidential incapacity. the suggestion of using the other provisions of section four of the 25th amendment as a contingency of swords, if the cabinet were unavailable through death or incapacity, appears to me at least to allow for the existence of the two bodies existing at the same time. even though different purposes. i reserve my own judgment on

that one as to consistency with the language and history of the other body provision of the 25th amendment. the report is correct to note, however, that the other by provision of section four of the amendment allows for the replacement of the cabinet as determining body in the case of inability. the suggestion of congress providing guidance to lower officials in the line of succession to have to deal with an issue of presidential inability is understandable. but i am not sure how far congress can go under the provisions of article two and the 20th amendment that allowed for the appointments of offices to serve in the line of succession. they will have their responsibility, their judgment, and how much congress can surround that with guidance, i think raises questions that need to be discussed and focused on.

finally, the recommendations in this report concerning fixing the pre-election that time period i agree with and command. and that's it. i look forward to continuing these discussions with you. thank you. [applause] >> did you want to mention the anniversary that you noted to me as well? john has a historical. >> well, professor amar made reference to garfield and arthur. i believe that today is the anniversary of the shooting of, you have to check on that, it's either july 1 or july 2, 1881 of garfield in union station. and it's just a historical note. >> jim mann. >> thanks very much.

i'm in a little different position. i'm a journalist and author. and in a funny position because the main problem that can cause me to write about presidential succession is addressed by the very issuance of this report, and in that sense is taken care of as i will later explain. and yet i'm also here to warn about some of the solutions that the report comes up with, which i think have some problems. i'll say, you know, as a journalist and author, the issue of succession comes up year in and year out in funny ways. this is not just with a cabinet member who is absent from the state of the union address. and the one that brought it home to me, just over 10 years ago, i was a correspondent interested in asia about to go with

president clinton on a trip to asia at the end of 1998. and at the last minute president clinton didn't go because he stayed back to take some military action against iraq, actually. we are talking about a militant under military action of a couple days, not six years. vice president gore went instead. and the same five or six reporters who were going to go on air force one with president clinton went with vice president gore, who welcomed us to the plane and began showing us around the plane with great relish. . . by several

people -- several people remembered both vice president cheney and secretary of defense rumsfeld and years earlier in a program they took part in the 1980s. the continuity of government exercises established by the reagan administration. this was again at a peak of cold war tensions with the soviet union. the issue was what would happen if there was a soviet attack on the united states, on washington in which several top officers

were killed and the response of the reagan administration was to set up a secret program is elaborate exercises in which three different teams were established -- they actually ran drills, teams of -- i forget 30 to 45 career officials who would know how to run the government and they needed someone to be in charge of each team so they appointed several people who knew how the federal government ran, and then they would take a cabinet member. now the cabinet member could be someone like secretary of agriculture, john block, for example, someone who didn't know national security. but the person who would really know how to run the show would be a former white house chief of staff. and so both dick cheney and don rumsfeld who both served as white house chief guesseses -- chiefs of staffs participated in these exercises and still relevant to some of the issues i'll talk about is they would go to different places each time.

sometimes abandoned school yards. why? they did that because the earlier responses of the 1950s had been to create these famous bunkers outside washington in virginia, mount whether. and by the 1980s, 30 years later, the fear was nuclear weapons could damage or somehow get to these fixed facilities. so the idea was mobility, surprise and so on. and as i looked into this -- i wrote about this at some length. and the thing that bothered me the most was that there was no constitutional or legal basis for this. congress was not part of it. this is not a procedure that congress set up. congress was taken out of the -- out of the legal line of

succession. this was a procedure that was set up entirely from within the executive branch of government without ever checking with congress. and, you know, when i say this process of the commission and its recommendations is important and to be congratulated, it's because this is -- you are and hopefully@@@@'k@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

the idea that a senator who has a job by virtue of his age should be in the line of succession is something that

should be fixed and fixed as soon as possible. we call this the strom thurmond provision if you want. but one way or another, that's all to the good. your recommendations on the inaugural are good. your recommendations on changing the strange procedure of bumping where one person can, you know -- where one person in the line of succession can bump another as people recover from problems and so on. that's all to the good. i want to reserve judgment on one of your most important recommendations, which is to get congress out of the line of succession. i haven't really thought that through enough. i have some reservations about that because i'm not sure it's necessary. you are making good points. i will say as a constitutional

matter, there seems to be some confusion as to what the constitutional issues are. the framers of the constitution were not worried about a change in parties. because, you know, they didn't exist at the time. so it's not -- that's not -- that's a policy question. that's not a constitutional question. and i don't know -- i'm not persuaded of the need to do that, but i think you are making good arguments on that. i want to turn for the last few minutes to the single provision which i have the greatest problems with. and that's the provisions to set up new officers outside of washington in the line of succession. because i do have -- i think that creates new problems and that the problems it's meant to address could be fixed in other

ways. so let's look at this. the suggestion is that there be several four or whatever new positions created, either of former senior federal officials or perhaps governors who would be in the line of succession. and that they would be ahead of existing cabinet members of all but the top four existing cabinet members. well, let's look at some of the people being suggested. first of all, governors -- i can't help by start what if the governors in argentina -- but, you know, how are we going to choose which states the governors are from, small states would be against big-state governors. who chooses them?

governors themselves have political ambitions. you talk about the political ambitions of a speaker of the house, for example, many governors are interested in running for president in the future and, in fact, i would say -- i would remind you that governors are well represented -- former governors are represented in the cabinet often including in this administration. i mean, the sorts of people who might be chosen as governors in these -- for these special jobs now are precisely the kinds of people who are in the cabinet. jan janet napolitano, kathleen sebelius. former officials, well, that sounds nicer than i think it might turn out to be. i'm reluctant to give former presidents and former vice presidents an ambiguous new role

in the national security apparatus. i think we've got a system that works just great the way it is. we have former presidents and vice presidents taking on the roles that they choose but without -- if it's a vice president, a former vice president might be interested running for president again, but one way or another, i have trouble seeing does the president of the united states -- he's the person who's going to choose these -- the people in these jobs. does he choose someone who might be a rival? does he not? let's take history of the last three or four months. i'm among the people who think that vice president -- former vice president cheney or jimmy carter or any president or vice president has the right to say

what he wants, express his views in public. that, you know, there's no obligation to shut up. but we're now going to give people access to new security information on which they can say my reading of the national security is that the new administration has weakened national security, i just see a lot of problems there. the president -- the new president who chooses the people for these positions is himself faced with a dilemma, okay, so if we're going to have four new federal officials in the line of succession, above most of the cabinet members, first of all, this downgrades the existing cabinet members. do you choose someone in line for a top federal job to run a cabinet position or maybe they'd rather stay in the home state and be sixth in the line of succession. and above all, i'm not sure i

see the need for this. we have a system now which is carried out as fran townsend has said -- there are procedures that take -- that are in operation at the time of the state of the union, inauguration, other times, where a cabinet member is out of town. we can have a cabinet member out of town nearly permanently. you know, just one at a time. you know, the cabinet members might like that, a requirement that, you know, one week out of 8 or 10 during the year, they're required to work out of town. it's certainly workable anyway. >> buenas aries. >> well -- and, you know, they can claim that they're checking

the, you know, sentiments outside of washington. i just don't see why setting up four or so new federal jobs -- to me it creates more problems than it fixes. so to me, i would extend the existing procedures for -- with the existing line of succession rather than create new jobs within the line of succession. thanks. >> thank you. thank you to all the panelists. as you can see, we didn't make this panel to be a panel of people who are officially associated with the commission to endorse every recommendation. in fact, i hear some of the arguments that we had internally on the commission. there are some weighing of things on each of these issues if you push in one direction maybe you move in the other direction. you know, i think the commissioned some answers to these things and wanted to move

in certain directions. just one point on one of the recommendations that jim mentioned on the last point about the cabinet members or the new positions outside of washington. we do recommend that the president appoint these people so it wouldn't be a precedent on the oldest state or the newest state but those are very reasonable arguments against that. i'm going to open this up and hope the panelists will talk amongst themselves. if any of you want to react to each other's comments and i'm going to open it up to the general audience. >> just a couple of quick thoughts. i agree that the framers of the constitution, of the original constitution, weren't quite focused on party continuity. james madison thought there were additional -- there were all

sorts of constitutional arguments above and beyond party continuity of presidential succession. but i do want to say the additional concern about party continuity isn't just the policy concern. it is a constitutional concern even if it wasn't part of the original constitution's concern. the twelfth amendment -- it's part of our constitution and it's about -- it ratifies an idea of national presidential parties. the 25th amendment seems to me to be an amendment very much embarrae embrace embracing a party model. these these are constitutional considerations in addition to the policy considerations even if james madison wasn't talking about them and didn't even need them to make the case in my view a very pervasive case that he made in 1790. the second and only other point i want to make about having some

people outside washington, d.c., in the line of succession -- baseball purists still haven't reconciled themselves to the designated hitter perhaps, but i think you can think about these people outside d.c. as kind of a designated hitter model, some baseball teams even have one person whose only job is to be a base runner in the late innings or, you know, a closer to deal with left-handed batters in the last inning. the reason i think maybe former presidents or former secretaries of state might suitably be appropriate people to be nominated by a president to be these contingent people outside of washington, d.c., you have to understand when you have a double death or a double disability we're in an extreme situation, a situation that america has never undergone

before. you just have to imagine, you know, psychologically that we're in such a situation. any amount of comfort and security that you can convey to the american people, to world leaders, to the markets, i think, would be to the good and -- and someone who's done it before, who's already served as president or as secretary of state, i think, could be -- and who knows what it is to be president really could be a perfect designated hitter-like person to do one unique function and, of course, as john fortier mentioned the president of the united states would be the person making the decision about who this designated hitter would be and the person would be subject to senate confirmation but i'm imagining someone who doesn't need a lot of on-the-job training that she or he already knows how to do the job and, frankly, that's not true of lower cabinet officials.

they don't quite have the credibility or the experience perhaps in these crises to step up and reassure everyone to the same degree that perhaps a former president or secretary of state or some really very considerable person nominated by the president to do this one very unusual thing in a low probability scenario would be able to do. >> thank you. if i could just state a little bit and i'll turn to jim, too. we sort of -- both john feerick had some criticisms of this proposal. that we took out -- that we recommended taking out the lower level cabinet members, those below the big four and jim more generally worried about bringing in these new people into the line. you know, we weighed those things together. i mean, akil mentioned this is an extreme situation where the president and the vice president died at the same time and it's more extraordinary that the president, the vice president,

the secretary of state, the secretary of treasury, the secretary of defense and the attorney general are all gone and now we are looking for number seven. we've cut out congress. we're looking for somebody way down the line. something extraordinary happened. we weighed both the question of wanting to make sure people were outside of washington that somebody was around and jim@@@@b

>> and more to the -- more to politics, vice presidents as we all know through much of american history have tried to figure out what their job is, their main job is to be in the line of succession and day in and day out they're not quite sure what beyond that they're supposed to do. you know, we are now creating 3rd, fourth, fifth, sixth vice presidents. on the possibility that all sixth of the top cabinet -- the senior officers, vice president, president and president, vice

president and four top officers all die, it seems to be remote. on the other hand, it gives the president the problem of choosing from among former presidents and vice presidents and governors. it provides a kind of standing for former presidents and vice presidents to reemerge with a current role. i would point out that in the event of a catastrophe, that the president -- that the country tends to rally around whoever is in charge. we certainly discovered that after 9/11. and that to me this is an entirely -- it's a very remote

and yet unnecessary procedure. and i guess -- you know, i would strongly oppose it. >> just one point. i must say i find this report is terrific and generating the kind of discussion you've heard from my colleagues, and that's in and of itself going to be a major contribution. you're going to force, hopefully, a lot more focus on these subjects. i was thinking to myself that if you -- if you -- and again, i just read the report a few times in preparation for this panel. i'm revolving myself, i suppose, because of the book update in this subject that i thought i had graduated from a long time ago. and it seemed to be true and back to it 'cause it's so important and interesting.

i think i would give a little more consideration to dropping the acting secretaries. let's take your recommendation to the top four. if the number two person in the state department -- the number two person in the ag's office you start rendering more remote the possibility of what you worry about, everybody being wiped out 'cause now you have more people in the line of succession. and my recollection your commission was under-secretary, i think, of the state department. you'll have to double-check me on that. and if it came to him having to step forward, he would have done a very fine job under the circumstances. and also in the federal law

today, under 5 u.s.c. takes over the absence or death or vacancy of the head of the departmen and the 25th amendment in terms of conferring authority on the cabinet along with the vice president to declare a president disabled specifically in the legislative history and its -- we've seen it -- you know it, it contemplates the acting secretaries stepping up to be in place of the head of the department where there's no head of the department. as i say, what your report is going to do, i think, is produce maybe a lot of ideas and suggestions and at the end of the day, if something emerges from the process, you will have made a major contribution so i salute you.

>> i'm not going to answer every objection. we have a panel coming up which will probably talk about some of these issues. do we have any other comments on the panel before we turn to a few questions from the audience? let's open it up for a couple of questions and then we will move to our second panel. right here and you can identify yourself when the mic comes. >> john wallstetter senior policy institute. would you be able solve the fair amount of problem with the following simple requirement in any meeting which has -- let's say four of the big six or all of the big six present, meaning, president, vice president, and the four top cabinet secretaries in the line of succession. they have to take place in an underground facility that is reinforced because if you're talking about a nuclear blast, it is not going to take out somebody, particularly, if it's

a small device, it will wipe them all and a whole bunch of buildings, kill 50, or 100 or 100,000 people on the surface but if you are in a bunker at the white house or at the treasury department and you are 100 feet down, you will survive. and that, therefore, with some modification and also taking into account, for example, on some ceremonial occasions that you can have people -- a helicopter right away. they don't have to be in sacramento. it's just as good if they were in richmond. where you can get a lot of the -- reduce the chance of having people all taken out at one time. the second question, if i could throw a second quick one -- there's a related question -- i took a quick look at your scenario. the first thing that's going to happen after that is marshall law. somebody is going to be taking command in the streets. and you need a provision that deals with marshall law whomever takes control if it's the

president if he survivors or someone else there will be marshall law after a nuclear event or a big wmd event, whether you call it that or not. for example, you get 30 days maximum before, you know, it's half the period of the war powers act to commit forces overseas where whoever has marshall law gets it whether it's the president or some senior surviving commander. after that you have to go to some sort of a congress and get 90-day extensions at the same time but some sort of procedure to bound marshall law as well because you're going to have that after an event like that. >> i'll take on the first 'cause i'm not sure what to say about the second. that may be a wise idea. on the first, obviously jim mann brought this up for the idea of operationally trying to make sure the members in the line of successi are not all together or not in danger and that, of course, goes on today.

and, you know, this is the most extreme possibility for which we feel the need to have some people outside of washington is we hope very remote and extreme. i'm not sure your scenario completely deals with it, though, an underground bunker wouldn't stop someone with an infectious disease that was put upon us, a biological weapon. it's not as simple as putting them underground and your point is well-taken. it's complementary to what we say. if you think it's sufficient, we may not need to do this but it's something that we are generally in favor of the operation of. anybody else want to jump in? okay. do we have another question? if not, we can turn to the second panel. so i'm going to turn it to tom mann who

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] the role is to harness the ability of these organizations, so that they can transmit the information to you. as we commemorate the life of michael jackson, one of his songs say, he is wanting to start with a man in the mirror. i want to say that this is the man and a woman in the mirror. you have been here today, the listening audience and you want us to begin with your neighborhood watch, and your organization to connect the information. we will do our best to get this information to you, and that the secretary level -- we have

connected the black leaders of america and we meet monthly with the white house. we meet quarterly with the united states house of representatives to bring you information. and we are always looking for ways that we can be better. >> one thing i really want to drive home -- for example, the secretary of agriculture -- we do not know him. he does not know us, fundamentally. but the programs -- the inspection of them, the housing construction loans and the other things that he does, he is beneath the radar screen and we have to connect.

we have come to figure out what we can do to become informed as to what is it sensible. you cannot tell us enough about the range of the department of agriculture. >> let me try to respond to that in a number of different ways. there were concerns about the stimulus and it is important to understand several things about this. there is money that is already in play that you may not be aware that you are getting the benefit of. i want to make certain that you know that in the state of illinois, the supplemental program, this will be about $1 billion, is coming into the community, and this does this electronically.

people have a benefit card and the stimulus money -- they have about $80 more, more capacity to go in and buy more groceries than they did several months ago. you may not be aware of the fact that the stimulus package and a half billion dollars -- half billion dollars more for medicaid. this is health care for people who cannot afford this. for women and children, people who are disabled. this money is in the system and if this had not come from the stimulus, the state may have restricted to would get health care or who could qualify. you may not be aware of the fact that $2 billion has come in the state to assist in the schools. if they had not received the

money, they would have had to lay off teachers. this is the money in play. there is the other thing that we need to talk about. this is where the local olive officials can find out where the money is and how to use this. broadband and whether recession money. -- whether -- weatherization money. this is helping people in rural areas to have access to the internet, to expand markets beyond the local markets, tremendous opportunities to grow and expand, and to give people access to this information. the rules are in the process of being written. this was written after a series

of public hearings, as to how to structure these programs. the rules will be coming out, and the nonprofits -- it organizations can apply for the money and there are about $7 billion that will be distributed over the next 18 months to the communities without access to internet, or who are having trouble trying to find out how to get people to use the internet. that is a question, how do you get the money? a city or a county could go to the local farm service office, and they can inquire for information as to how to get the application. we will be happy to assist in providing information to answer questions.

those applications have been submitted, and if they are found to have merit, and interest, this will go to a second process where we will flesh out the operation. and you will have the resources for the first mile and the last mile. that money will put people to work and create opportunity, this is the beginning of an effort to connect everyone in the country. the weatherization money is through another department, secretary donovan and -- they are working for homes in rural areas, to give them the means to weatherize their homes. giving them the kinds of things where people can reduce their

heating and cooling bills. this is moral and urban areas. the goal is that we would like to be able to do this for 1 million homes. what i would suggest is, a neighborhood where small city to contact the energy department and find out what is this program about, and how do i get an opportunity for the homeowners in my community, and they would educate their citizens about the fact that this money is available. the state of illinois has $250 million available under this, the court -- a quarter of a billion dollars just for one state. the goal is to do this for 1 million houses. you have to distinguish between

the programs in place, that are actually getting money, to the people in need, against the things that can create opportunities. the category where we can help you figure out how to make an application for these resources. i would say that what we need to do, and the rev. suggested this, we need to win by the representatives from this organization, from this coalition and all the organizations here, if he would not mind coming to washington, where a place to conference you in, we can have a session where we can give you more detail than i can give you today about these programs.

[applause] >> and if this is successful we can duplicate this, and have a video to distribute the video. >> did you speak to minority contractor in through stimulus? >> there are provisions that require -- that we have to follow, in making a decision about who will get the contracts. i should have the statistics of of the top of my head. i know that we do a very concerted effort to make certain that small business contractors get more than their fair share of contracts. roughly 25% of the contracts. i think that the goal for the federal government is 16%, we

were at 24%. >> are these construction? >> the whole range of things that we do, from consulting contracts, a time when we need a special expertise on how to put something together, we hire people to help us do this. maybe we are working on getting the -- the directors spoke about farmers' markets and we may have to reach out to groups to support farmers markets, and this may be a contract on the forest service to fight fires or purchase of equipment, all of these contracts have to go through this process. >> the reason i asked about this is because, there is a difference between minority contracts and low over dissipation. we have some states where the

local minority contractors are not receiving the contracts, and companies that are minority from other states are receiving the contracts and the purpose of the stimulus bill was to support local communities, to create jobs and sustain jobs that exist. >> i will not be able to speak about this very well, but the process goes both ways, i am -- i am learning from you and you are learning from may. i will take this back to washington. how do we make certain that this money provides local jobs? i cannot answer this except to say that the usda programs, if you look at what we do, this helps local groceries, because you will see them buying more

products, and they will have to get this from the regional distribution and this stays in the community. the home loans involve the capacity for people to be able to purchase a home, and our lines are more flexible than you may get, at a bank. people who are having a hard time, we can get them into the house more easily. the school lunch and school nutrition program, this does not necessarily always benefit the local producers, but this certainly benefits agriculture, generally. the business and industry long programs, create jobs and companies -- and most of what we do impacts the community. the waste water treatment facility will benefit the

community. the ambulance for the fire station that we have helped to build, the cells to provide health care for people. even in urban centers, we do not think of this as a place with trees, but we have a number of programs, urging us. this is an emerging area that is important, because this will link us to more nutritious food opportunities to make certain our children are healthy. much of what we do does stay in the community. >> you talk about rural development, you talked about windmills and construction. can you talk about firetrucks and those kinds of items? i know that we have a small

community, and if we can put something into these fire trucks, we have to pay for those also. >> the usda has many programs in rural development. i thought you're going to ask me what the definition of this was, because there are 12 different definitions. there is no single definition. we have a community facility grant program, the community facilities grant and loan program. if i am a mayor, and i have a challenge because i need a library, and i want to attract a business or a fire truck to keep the fire insurance premiums, this is important. if you have a good fire department, home insurance is

lower. if we can have a dead leaf -- a better fire department, we can have a better library or health care clinic. that is what this is for. this comes from the grants or loans. if the government can get their money for next to nothing, these loans will allow you to get this for next to nothing. >> commissioner? a final question. >> thank you. two issues, that i will speak to. the first is the definition of minority. in the last few years, i have worked on the immigration task force, the concern over undocumented labor -- this has moved african-americans and we

are in a state of fear, we do get the percentages of minorities, they are not african americans anymore. thank you. i still have to go back to broadband, because this is one of the primary focus is. i am happy because i have a resolution that we just passed for the women in municipal government. we are promoting the adoption and the use of broadband internet. but one question i asked the rev., is that, coming down the pipe -- we will not have the access, it will be easier to pay for your internet than other utilities.

it is just as important. but it is hard to train somebody without a trainer. we are not going to get the african-american community, going downtown to the library. we will have to hire somebody to come to our schools, and the churches. we do not have this facility but we have community centers. the issue is the impact for the black community and how we are going to be able to benefit directly from these dollars. i understand that you are talking about food stamps. >> this is not food stamps. this is very important. i am on a campaign to stop people from using that term. this is the supplemental

nutritional assistance program, the emphasis is on nutrition, healthy food. this is not about welfare or the connotations that go with food stamps. this is about helping people each food so they can do their jobs and be successful people. let's. of those polled -- that term. >> we never liked that word, food stamps or welfare. this was the most of efficient way of describing a disadvantage community. i respect this. i did not know that is what you call this. i am concerned about how we get our hands on some of the dollars, to help with this and broadband, construction?

we are not going to build the bridge, but you will not find one or two african-american -- we're not going to build the road unless somebody changes the structure, somebody has to help us and give us resources. >> these are great questions, and very challenging. let me help with the issue of how you get money for trainers and how to get people interested in utilizing the technology. there are opportunities through the local schools, local community organizations, with a number of stimulus programs. if i was in a small community with a minority population, and i wanted to make certain they understood broadband internet, i would go to the closest school,

i would talk to the principal and the community college, and i would say that you have a responsibility to help us. you can provide opportunities for people to see how they can better connect with the family, they can get better education for their children. i would ask for them to work with you, to find out the program, if this is the resources for education, or if this was something through the usda, grant money, to create those opportunities in terms of the people and the access to technology. i would say, do not wait for us to come to the library. you can come to us.

our tax dollars are supporting your salary, you bring the library to us. do not assume that we will come to the library. i think people will respond to this. on the issue of minority contracts, all that i can tell you is what we are trying to do, we are trying to make certain that the contributions that you make in the form of tax dollars, are given back in a proportional weight. i am proud of the record recently from the usda, of the fact that we are doing a better job of helping small contractors, with the contract in opportunities in the federal agencies.

these are greater than the average that has been said in the threshold. i take from this meeting -- we need to go even deeper, when we do business -- we have to make certain this is as close to home town as possible. >> before you leave, i would like for you to make a comment about pickford. >> the usda and all the other agencies, they have a pool of money at the national level. the telecommunications and information -- information administration -- there is an application for a 10,000 residential area in the city of chicago. we would have to match this with 20 million. there is a section that will allow for the cities, and the

others to apply for broadband technology and grant money. >> this is very important. there is a website, that would encourage people to go through for this reason. we have put together and map, of the united states and you can go to every state, and you'll be able to find out which projects have been funded, and this will give you a feeling of what you could potentially think about, and where you may be able to apply for assistance. we have worked on this, and the housing and urban development office is involved, and we're trying to get every agency to filter in what they are doing with their money, so that we can provide this information to the citizens to make judgments about whether this is a good use of

dollars, or get ideas -- i did not know that we could do that at the department of energy. >> i know that the secretary will have to leave. he has already agreed to host a meeting, to be arranged by dr. leonard. they will put together an agenda and i think that we can talk to the department of agriculture. and perhaps the secretary of commerce, on these urban issues. do you want to talk about this? >> i can. for many years, the usda was not properly dealing with or handling and loan application, or the concerns of the minority farmers. tens of thousands of claims have

been filed, with the native american indian farmers. we are in the process of dealing with these issues. president obama has agreed with the conclusion that one way to resolve this would be for congress to establish money, we have suggested putting in 1.2 $5 billion for these claims, there are two separate groups, there is one process that is almost finished. >> this is finished? >> this was an african-american former who was feeling that he was improperly dealt with, when he applied for a loan. he filed a lawsuit and started a class-action lawsuit. there were 22,000 farmers receiving certification, with

tens of thousands of people who did not apply properly or felt that they were left out of the process. congress created a second group, and we are dealing with the second group, to create a system where we have money that is available for distribution to these people in a streamlined process so that people can get the money before they die. the reality is that this has strung out so long, many people have passed away. we want to get this done. >> thank you, secretary. they have a couple of questions. >> you are wanting to ask me a question? can you let the other people know that we will be a little

bit late. >> i am and member of a group in chicago and i attended a summit and one prominent -- one problem i noticed in terms of the green college and agriculture and basically -- i am in agreement, the contracts and the opportunity and training, there is a digital divide and an ecological divide with the green collar movement and those opportunities, in terms of agriculture. as i was there in northwestern -- i was the only african- american there. the white people were talking about things that my mother and grandfather, if i had documented this, they were basically talking about composting and

farming, understanding this, just basic kinds of things. this is indigenous to the african-american experience. what funding is available, in terms of seeing the digital divide, there is the ecological divide. on the local level -- i think -- information campaigns, so people understand that there are opportunities to do things out of the box, that do have employment contracts and opportunities. i do not see people talking -- in terms of the outcome, that real people can understand. >> let him respond.

>> we are starting a program -- this is to create a connection between local consumption and local production. if you look at farming in america, you will see that in the last five years, there were 108,000 new farming operations that were very small operations, these are doing the practices that you have spoken of. >> we do not have access to fresh fruits, so small entities could create those opportunities. i am saying that this is not happening. >> i am getting there. that is what this is about. this is about creating the infrastructure that would allow for a connection, i am an urban

center or a rural area, between the people who produce locally and consume locally. this is connecting the institutional purchase of food. would it be great that you could do this and provide fresh produce to a school in the neighborhood. this creates markets for these small operations. we're putting together a plan, of marketing and treating the infrastructure, and ask where the money comes from? there is a farmer's market promotion program, there is the plural business and industry program, and this is about processing facilities, cold storage and warehousing, sufficient production, and linking the producers to meet

the demand of the consumers. we are aware of what you have outlined. we are putting together a series of large grocery stores, and we are asking them, in a community like chicago -- or bad rouge or detroit -- back in ruche -- baton rouge or detroit, how can they serve food that is less nutritious, and you cannot have a grocery store? what can we do to allow grocery stores to be able to thrive in these areas so these people have access to fresh fruits and vegetables for a balanced diet? >> i want you to hear me very

well. today, we are triggering a conversation, and conversation we have never had, with the department we have never had this with. this is the beginning of a journey into the world of agriculture. not limited to what we thought. there is a psychological thing about farming. the smallest part of this budget is about farming. when you leave us today, you put the burden on us of following through on this conversation. the connection between his department and these officials, and these ministers, we have never really had this before.

we have not known about this being connected to us. we have heard this conversation today. i want to respect his schedule. i want to ask another question. and when he has left we will be here about 20 minutes to prepare for the follow-through, to implement what we have heard here today, this is significant because we must take this message to the other civil rights organizations, so that we can hear what these new opportunities are, that we will talk about in the basic conversation. [no audio] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> a quick question. i am a community activist. since we have the opportunity of having you here, i want to ask you this question for clarity. i know people who are farmers in louisiana -- louisiana and we did not understand about this lawsuit. i understand that this was filed and concluded that the black farmers, would get a certain amount of money at some time. they had to be given a certain amount of money, and the money that they were given, once this was over, the money has been cut

-- is this true? what was the dollar amount for each of those farmers? >> in this case, the very first settled case, there were to go below sorts of farmers. you could be in classification as a or b. let's say i wanted to be in the first. you receive a lump-sum payment, of $50,000. this was the amount of money that you received. and he received some debt forgiveness, and some relief from the irs in paying taxes. that is the settlement money. if you chose not to be this kind of farmer, you would say, i

think my damages are greater than $50,000 and i want to prove that i am entitled to more money, and whenever i approve, this is what the government will have to pay. and those cases are still in the process of being finished. and as each person proves their case, they may get what ever they prove. that is that case. there were tens of thousands of people who did not understand the rules or know about the case, or just did not know how to go about doing what they needed to do. so congress established a second group, and in that group they said, here is $100 million, here is $100 million, go resolve those cases.

$100 million will not do this. this is not going to resolve the case. president obama, at our suggestion, has placed in his budget proposal another $1.1 billion, so this would be 1.2 $5 billion, that would be available for distribution. and the department of justice and the farmers would finish -- would remember how to carve this up, in a way that would give people a semblance of justice. there are those who believe that this should be in a higher amount. they want to create another part of money larger than $1 billion to resolve the case, and find a way to distribute the money to these people more quickly so it does not take another 10 years. >> thank you very much

secretary. [applause] >> quickly -- >> i will tell you, thank you for letting me be you. i am and activist for people on the street. i have a nonprofit organization with no government funding. i want to know how to get the free lunches to the children on the streets. i deal with a lot of people and hear a lot of things. nobody wants to help me with these boxes of food. you give me a web site where i can go to give to my foundation to help the children on the street. >> we have the answers right here. >> >> let me just do one more.

>> a question for the secretary. >> i represent an organization called urban farming. we took $5,000, we have 600 gardens in different countries, we have said 280,000 people off of $5,000. these are the applications from children who have signed up to create green jobs. we have had organic fruit and vegetable gardens -- we would like to show you how we can implement this across the world. we were on good morning america, we are on the web site.

one of the gardens was picked up by campbell's soup, so we can feed more people. and the children came up with a delivery service to deliver fresh foods and vegetables. >> i want to ask the man to go out -- we cannot stop all this for one problem. she must deal with her problem in line with other people. as we deal with this subject, the real problem will be falling through.

he has his staff here, and a plan of implementation on the ground. they have the secretary here for the first time, and there is a lot that needs to be done. this is not just to get this in today, but to do this in the time required, to follow through. i want to thank you for coming here. >> if you can give chris or joseph, if you can get the petitions from this lady, we will try to get a woman by the name of libya markey -- libya -- liva marquis. she may be able to help you know what the resources are to

help you expand your program. >> thank you very much. >> on behalf of the rainbow coalition -- you have heard what they have done -- thank you for your work in making this happen. there are two operative words i want you to take back to washington. knowing where the resources are, because by and large people do not know, and something that is called targeting. the anxiety here is that we see the stimulus coming out, the banks have money they did not ask for, and some are going to send the money back.

the issue of targeting -- the small towns with resource deficits, -- they cannot get through the upstairs crowd. by the time they get there with these budget deficits, this will never get down to where those people are. you are a banker and we do not know that. we do housing and libraries, we do consulting and contract in. most people will work through this with your staff today. i would like to talk to you and the other agencies about targeting. if he can work with us about the areas of need, this will solve

lan multitude of problems. we saw, house by house, how to reduce the rate and restructure the loans. with the students, he watched them dropping out of school, charging them more and more for less and less, there it -- there are some structural -- structural adjustments that will have to take place. he will be at the center of education, and he will be here from housing. we can work on targeting, and knowing where their resources are. we can solve a multitude of problems. we thank you for being here today. [applause]

>> let us take our seats. we have -- please take your seats. take your seats. there are several points that we made, we have a few more minutes, of time on c-span, as we speak to the nation. i want to walk through this with you, the rest of the convention schedule and obligation, and tie all of this together.

yesterday, the focus on the state of civil rights. the voting rights act has been challenged by the supreme court in this session. we survive with section 5 intact, section two was challenged for a negative impact. the supreme court will make a ruling on affirmative action. the case that they are using, if they use the strictest interpretation -- affirmative action may lose, which will require new legislation. this has been miscast as a minority verses majority issue, which is a black versus white.

this is not majority or minority. this is women, tie line. to protect them from racial and gender discrimination. that is what we dealt with yesterday. and there are more americans wrongfully convicted, and innocent, in jail, than in abu girab and guantanamo. there are more people serving in jail innocent, -- there were in jail for 30 years and found innocent. one man was in jail for 38 years and he was found to be innocent. this was the backlash after the

southern struggle, using jails to maintain this order -- but there are six southern states, where one-third of all black men have lost their right to vote. this is enormous in determining elections of governments and presidents. this is a big deal. we want to talk about how broad the scope of this department is. and how to access this, beyond the meetings of small towns. food programs are not just small towns, this is los angeles and chicago. there is the issue of knowing where the resources are, knowing where the resources are, targeting them to people who

need to have them. and there is an issue here, of not knowing where the resources are, and -- they are not shovel ready. different ways to keep people locked out of this. tomorrow -- the focus will be on the access to business. whoever takes over general motors and chrysler, they have the obligation to enforce civil rights law. these are critical to the restructuring in a way that this is helping everyone. this cannot just be civil rights. this must be global, in the way that last year, we purchased 750,000 cars from south korea, they purchased 5000 from us.

they are opening up plants in china. the impact of the globalization of capital, without taking into account workers' rights and women's rights, this is a big deal for us. there is the infrastructure discussion, after the business breakfast tomorrow morning. and then the international luncheon. one man who is coming is stuart lockwood. we were blessed to bring a young man who was 5 years old that was -- that said cent -- that saddam hussein was trying to intimidate. we were able to bring him back.

he is one of the guests this year. he is a very special guest, and we went to get three soldiers out of yugoslavia. one of them will be here, as the special guest also. this is the 25th anniversary of the 84 run for president where we tried to open up the country. the focus is going to be on equal access to education. and a fight to reduce the student loan rates. the burden of the cost is now a heavy burden to bear. we will give back education but also student scholarships, $400,000 worth of this on monday night. [applause] on tuesday, the focus will be

on the governor -- the governor of the state will talk about the impact that they did not pass a bill in illinois, they did not have a tax adjustment in that state, and this affected thousands of dollars in services. in the afternoon, ministers will focus on financial literacy and saving people's homes and their jobs. they will invest in america. the keynote speaker -- tina the speaker is from jacksonville, fla.. -- the keynote speaker is from jacksonville, florida. they have someone who was very old at 29 years old. life beyond the playing field. and we will close out with a

section on health care. equal access to health care. the big issue around the financial crisis, when did he get medical care. did the doctor tried to do this and could not do this, and then he called 911? we do not know how to answer these questions. we know that john mitchell was on staff. he said he felt a pain in his chest. and he stumbled to the desk and he said, i think that i am having a heart attack. within four minutes, they were here. they worked him over, talking back to the hospital, and within 20 minutes he was in the hospital. within one hour, there was a blood clot moving to his death.

without adequate health care, he would have been rock -- he would have been gone. this is very personal. if he was at home alone, he could not have had health care. if they were debating if he had enough insurance, he would have died while the argument was taking place. the keynote speaker on wednesday -- in the afternoon there is the women's luncheon. we will close out with a session on civil rights. constitutional law will be the last session. i really want to thank you for being here today.

i want you to give the panel a big hand. >> in a few moments, a preview of president obama and his trip overseas, including a summit with russia. and at 7:00, your calls and comments on "washington journal "for your comments will include iraq, afghanistan, and the day's news. >> notable americans on c-span, stories from inside the white house, from richard nixon to george w. bush, honoring president ronald reagan. ken burns on his career and his series on national parks. a tribute to john updike. and a reunion of the apollo 8

astronauts. and three days of "book tv" featuring books on the american revolution, and questions on george washington street from his estate. and p.j. o'rourke on his passion for cars. then wangari maathai on the challenges facing africa. find out what is happening at any time on c-span.org. >> a discussion on obama and his visit to russia, new killer -- nuclear disarmament is going to be the main topic. he is expected to praise the peaceful democratic election of ghana.

this is just over one hour. >> and good morning, and welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. today we are going to do this a little bit differently because we have many issues so we are going to do this in waves. we will stop -- we will start out with the moscow summit. i will tell you that they are the best in the business and i will let this go to them. >> good morning. i think that as long as we keep our expectations low about this, we are less likely to be disappointed by what is about to transpire. i have been enthusiastic advocate of the reset button, to

improve the u.s. and russian relationship, there is a flaw in the logic. part of this is that, we have a new leader who is president obama, who is ready to adjust his policies. in moscow we do not have a new leader. we have the same leadership that we had before, and we are looking at resetting the relationship. we should not have any illusions about where the authority lies in russia today. this is a fiction and obama has to operate on the assumption that, the nuclear reduction in afghanistan -- the ultimate arbiter is live near putin -- vladimir putin.

obama will have to assume that there isbetween me-- obama will have to assume that there is no barrier between medvedev and putin. he should probably have harbored no illusions that he could take measures to empower medvedev or any left-leaning officials in the russian government. if what i am is suggesting is true, this will create several problems. the most important challenge is the unconstitutional decision making, that has to do with the optics of the meeting. we can have them preside over a summit, which will hopefully be the